Exposing fake and falsehood

Pope Emeritus rebuke the Jesuit Pope

Pope Benedict XVI warns that the Catholic Church is facing a “deep crisis” following reforms of the Second Vatican Council that was held in 1965.

The two Pope in the Roman Catholic Church have serious disagreement about salvation.

LifeSite reported on an interview granted to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in which the retired Pontiff refers to a “two-sided deep crisis” in the Church.

Among Benedict’s concerns are the belief that other religions are equal to Christianity in obtaining salvation and the change in dogma that lessens fears that one’s eternal salvation can be lost.

“The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever,” Benedict said. “After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.”

As for the universalist view that all those outside the Catholic Church can be saved, which was adopted after Vatican II, Benedict asks, “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”

The view also prevents Catholics themselves from seeing a need to practice their faith, he said.

Why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” he asked. “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”

Even less acceptable, Benedict said, “is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects.”

The “Holy Catholic Church” has a serious problem. Not only do this religious movement, have two infallible popes. They disagree on what salvation is. And both of them are wrong.

Pope Benedict holds on the the classical heretical pre Vatican II council view, that there is no salvation outside the RCC. Only those who take the “holy eucharist” and continue to do so, can be saved.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

The present Jesuit Pope believe that all who love “god”, will be saved. Regardless if they ever will visit a Roman Catholic shrine or not.

The truth is that only those who have made Jesus their God and Master will be saved. In this way salvation is exclusive. In this way Pope Benedict is right. But all who have other middle men between God and them selves, will eventually perish. That includes all Roman Catholics who pray to “Mary”, saints and madonnas in their tens of thousand. Pope Benedict him self act like a pagan, and he’s follow a falls “Christ” who is supposed to accept this kind of paganism in the name of Christendom.

What about Pope Francis?

The truth is that all men can be saved. Jesus died for the sins of all men. In this way, salvation is more than anything inclusive. The Jesuit Pope has partly understood. But Francis has twisted the message, and deceive millions of souls, by denying that Jesus demand a surrender to Him as Lord and savior. To be included in those who will be welcomed inside the Kingdom of Heaven.

All who believe in the Messiah, must reject both these Popes. Non of them have understood the gospel. Not of the represent God of the Bible.

Yes. Both Benedict and Francis are per definition pagans. They do not belive that Jesus the Messiah is the only mediator between man and God. They pray for the dead and to the dead, and entertain forces in the occult realm.

There is no way those two could ever come to the right answer. They would have to throw away the idea that people should be baptized into the catholic church. The scripture says people should be baptized into Christ. So those two convolute the issue arguing whether a person should or should not be baptized Catholic. You see the same tactics in politics, they control the arguement so the unspeakable never comes into question. Trampling the grass and muddying the water…

You are only partly right. The scriptures say that people were baptized and added to the group of believers. Just read what took place on the day of Pentecost.

Baptism was the entry point to the BODY of Christ, who collectivly, represent Him on the face of the Earth. So yes: People are baptized into the Church.

When the RRC sprinkle water of infats, and decleare them “saved”, and add them to the RCC Church records, it is at best a forced membership. It has never been Biblical baptizm, and must therefore be rejected.

Baptism does not declare us saved it is a cleansing of original sin and a commitment of our soul to Christ,to become a part of the body of Christ ,not the church this is what i was raised to believe.I have been to many catholic baptism and the infant is given to God in the name of Christ Jesus not in the name of the RCC

The Roman Catholic Church do teach that there is salvation in baptism. The Vatican claim they are “Christs” representatives on Earth, and add the name of the infant in their Church records.

The salvation of the infant can be lost. If the infant, turned a child, do not continue to confine it self at the mass, take the eucharist. Their life with “Christ” starts as thet take the first “holy communion”. As a youth, the former saved infant, have to confess his sin to a Catholic priest.

Eventually the infant, will become an elderly person, and will have to die and spend some time in purgatory to be cleansed in the fire. The RCC teach that the Church will save, cleanse, the person, by offering prayes, remembrance masses, and offerings (money) for the departed soul.

Prayer to the dead, or for the dead is witchcraft. Done in the name of the “Christ” of the Pope.

But what is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ; whom Christ is the head of, even though he is in heaven. The difference between free people in Christ and people ruled by an authoritarian dictator. It makes a big difference.
People are “baptized into Christ”, Romans 6:3 “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

“Christ is the head of the church” collectively.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

People form groups of “churches” on their own accord. Here the Thessalonians got together and collectively became the church of the Thessalonians.

2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

Infants don’t need to be baptized because they are slaves to their parents, they have no choice or understanding of baptism, they are what their guardians say they are. If one parent is Christian their whole family is saved.

Edward,the last part of what you wrote is ridiculous and ignorant,Acts2;38-39 or Matt 19;14 etc if your going to comment on catholic baptism then have some knowledge of it instead of a prejudice ill informed opinion that is based on others believe..are you ex catholic,have you been raised or baptized by that faith ?No where in the bible does it state the age of which baptism should occur and there are references in Luke and the letters of paul that claim all in the family be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,it does not say oh do it at 7 or 10 or whatever Also does baptism replace circumcision for the gentile?Sorry but that does gall me My mum being a Christian does not save me,and i defy you to find one catholic that believes that !!!!!! stop peeing in pockets excuse my bluntness Ivar and all …

Can’t resist I learned this from the Catholics on their website. When there is a disagreement one is supposed to go back to the catechism. Maybe that is what the popes need to do since they don’t read the bible…….

Rommgirl, you should study the bible. When Paul baptized a Jailer it says the Jailers whole family was baptized, it does not say he baptized the whole family. And another example says that if one parent is baptized they both are saved, as long as they continue in the faith. From that you can deduce that members of the family can be saved even if they aren’t baptized, and in some situations even if they are unbelievers. If all catholics are wrong on that blame the pope. The pope fills your pockets full of piss, I am merely trying to drain your papal piss without getting any on me.

Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.”

No, gentiles should not be circumcised. Circumcision represents the cleanness of perfect adherence to the law, but we are under God’s grace and do not need to make sacrifices for sin as the Jews did. “If a gentile is circumcised, Christ is of no use to him”

By the way ,the pope does not pee in my pocket i was not foul mouthed to you but you brown nose to Ivar and how much of what you comment on catholics is bais re-read half baked crud,and no i do not have a loyalty to catholic church..dont you bite when your asked to explain tut tut

Baptism in the name of christ replace’s circumcision .The jew still practice this under Torah law ,and no offence meant to them but as all they are far from perfect adherence God gave his son and himself as the perfect final sacrifice and a new covenant .Do the Jew’s follow Torah or new test ,do they follow the laws of God in truth in relation to CHRIST no ,but do they observe the laws of God in pre Christ ,yes ,Are we not told under God’s law and new testament to be baptised in the name of CHRIST to be a part of the body of God/Christ,sorry but are you saying that if i circumcised my son ,christ is of no use to him,are you saying a Christian cant be circumcised?Yes in truth it is Jewish old testament custom/law to circumcise and biblical new testament to baptise ,but people do not only circumcise for religious purpose now day’s .And he that believe in me shall not perish but have everlasting life,I thought that meant we must believe in CHRIST TO BE SAVED!!!

This is again wrong, and Roman Catholicism. Circumcision is only for boys. So with this kind of logic, girls do not need to be baptized.

Circumcision has nothing to do with salvation. It is a physical sign in the flesh of the boys, that the land of Israel belongs to them. An everlasting instruction, that exist up to this very day. Therefore, the Jewish people are home in the state of Israel, their promised land. The sons of the soil have returned home.

If Circumcision is abolished, and replaced with baptism, than the land of Israel belong to the Pope. Just as false Christians claims. People who have no respect for the Word of God, but rather opine on matters they have no knowdlege about, seems to quickly accept the falsehood spread by the Vatican.

Almost all Messianic Jews (boys) are cicumzised as infants, and baptized as adults. Just like Jesus the Messiah.

When a child is promised to God,a parent has an obligation to teach them,once they are adult’s they can make up there own mind and if they feel that they are being misled they will seek out the truth and not give a rat’s patoot about the church’s slant on it .non are born Christian,We are baptized in the name of Christ,most of us are seekers at some stage through dissatisfaction in what we have been raised and that does not stand for catholic’s only after all are we not told to seek the truth.

How do you teach someone to believe in Christ? You’re saved by believing in Christ right? Why not take the free gift that “If You believe in Christ you are saved- you and your household.” It’s sort of inherent that parents will teach their children according to their beliefs, no more needs to be said about that..

Huh? Ivarjfeld you wrote “If Circumcision was abolished, and replaced with baptism, than the land of Israle belong to the Pope.” I think you just identified yourself as Catholic, believing that the pope is the head of Christianity and anything baptized belongs to him.

I think Pauls statement that “if a person believes a certain thing then for that person it is true” So, if a person believes in infant baptism then for that person infant baptism is necessary, but if a person does not believe infant baptism is necessary then for that person it is not necessary.

Edward and Ivarfjeld, what you Ivarfjeld wrote makes sense to me. What is weird is all of a sudden in U.S. On different sites circumcision is starting to be debated how cruel it is. I wondered why after all these years. maybe I am wrong so that would be the motive behind it. For the Jews and state of isreal. Also on the radio the other day they said same sex marriages are seeming more acceptable. But divorce rates are looking more unfavorable. Hmmm.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

“Circumcision of the heart” sounds a lot like baptism, recieving the spirit that is right with God.

Paul is not doing away with circumsition. He expains, that no Jew were saved by this small cut in the flesh, But rather by a cut in the heart. True. Just like no Christian being saved in their baptism, but rather by a cut in their heart. All of us can only be saved by a cut-changing experience, a cut given us by the Messiah.

Circumsicsion in the flesh is an everlasting ordinace. If the Jews are not circumsized, they will be cut of from their own people. Having no birthright to their nation:

Genesis 17:9-14.

9 Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner – those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’

The Catholic Church council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D banished Judaism from the “Church”. What a shame. The faith of the Son of man was criminalized.

What has the Pope done?
1. He changed the city of David, from being Jerusalem to emperial Rome.
2. He claimed God of the Hebrew had cancelled all his everlasting promises to the Hebrews.
3. He claimed that promises to the Jews had been gifted to the Roman Catholics.
4. He replaced the Jewish callender with his own callender.
5. He changed the beginning of the Sabbath from Friday evening to Sunday morning.
6. He claims that East Jerusalem is occupied, and that the Mountains of Zion belongs to the Arabs.
etc.

There are slews of atheists out there against anything that has to do with God. It’s probably Oprah trying to show everybody how cruel God is for making anyone get circumcised. Like she would know anyway.

That was the point i was trying to make.old testament law that didnt seem to be about baptism in the spirit of Christ to the Jew verses new testament covenant of baptism for the gentile to become a part of the body of Christ,the old covenant was in essence for the jew before Christ

You are my sister, But I sometimes have to rebuke you. For a simple reason. You need to read the scriptures, and have the Word of God as the hightest authority in you life. If you read your Bible on a regular basis, and attend a Bible study group you will be blessed.

That there is no baptism in the Old Testament, is only a half truth. And I can quote Paul, to make my case:

1 Corinthians 10: 1-4

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

(end of Scriptures)

Please understand that the Old Testament is all about “Christ”. He is there. But He has not, yet come in flesh to die on the cross. The Messiah is the alpha and omega. He has no beginning and no end. He is God eternal.

What I believe is Israel was a metaphor for heaven. Like the old covenant meant the land of Israel the new covenant means the land of heaven.

My reply:

Your are entitled to believe what ever you like. Feel free. My consern, is what the Bible says about Israel:
1. Israel is a person. His name was chnaged from Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes. Not a metaphore.
2. Israel is a people. The decendance of Jacob. Not a metaphore.
4. Israel was an ancient kingdom. Physicall in form, and full of people. Not a metaphore.
5. Israel is a rebirthed nation. I have just been there. This nation is built by Jews, gathered home from all the nations under the sun. Just like the prophectic word had foretold.

It is important that we dont mix up the word “Israel”, and use the word out of context. Some fake Christians, even say Israel is the Church. Today’s Church.

It doesn’t spell it out, it’s more of a puzzling reflection of the big picture.

I think it could mean heaven, or the new earth, or Israel of the New Earth with Christ as its king. But not before the resurrection and the complete and utter destruction of this earth and everything in it, by God, with fire. Like the flood except fire this time.

1 cor. 13:12 Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.